Posted
by
Soulskillon Tuesday December 18, 2012 @02:43PM
from the space-aliens-must-step-up-their-game dept.

pigrabbitbear writes "Cars, once again, are killing us. They're killing us in crashes and accidents, yes, and they're encouraging us to grow obese and then killing us a little more slowly. But, more than ever before, they're killing us with their pollution. Particulate air pollution, along with obesity, is now the two fastest-growing causes of death in the world, according to a new study published in the Lancet. The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution – particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia, where a boom in car use has choked the streets of India and China's fast-expanding cities with smog."

Wait, which book was that? I don't recall Ford saying anything like that.

As to the actual topic at hand, TFS reads... well... not too intelligently, starting with the headline "The World's Fastest-Growing Cause of Death Is Pollution From Car Exhaust". Uh, CAR exhaust? What about the busses, trucks, boats, airplanes, and other internal combustion vehicles? Id wager that eighteen wheeler pollutes more than my car, and I'd bet the farm a B-52 does.

"Cars, once again, are killing us."

Uh, they ever stopped?

"and they're encouraging us to grow obese and then killing us a little more slowly"

Cars have been around for over a hundred years. So why is it only now that people are getting fat? You think it might not be the cars we've been riding in every day of our lives but instead the fact that everything you eat has HFCS in it, and that what was once a large soda at McDonald's is now a small soda? Or that portion sizes in every damned restaraunt I've seen have likewise skyrocketed? Nah, it must be the cars that made you (but not your dad or grandpa who also had cars all their lives) fat.

"But, more than ever before, they're killing us with their pollution"

Bullshit. Cars don't pollute at all when compared to cars 50 years ago that ran on leaded gas and had no catylitic converters or other emissions controls. What comparitively "little" they do pollute is only compounded by the numer of them worldwide.

And guess what? Pollution in Hong Kong doesn't affect my health at all. My environment is VASTLY cleaner than it was 50 years ago when I was ten, before the EPA, back when rivers caught fire and you couldn't drive past Monsanto with the windows down.

"Particulate air pollution, along with obesity, is now the two fastest-growing causes of death in the world, according to a new study published in the Lancet."

That's because when they were third world, they were dying from disentery and TB and their countries had no cars at all.

They're not killing us, they're killing Indians and Chinese and other newly industrialized people. I'd say it's a net win for the world. I'd much rather die of a heart attack at age 50 than die of starvation at age 70.

..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.

In short, this isn't news, it was expected when you consider how much of the world is still developing quickly.

..to 2 billion people when you consider India + China. That means automobile transportation is quickly becoming NORMAL in those areas. That means HORRENDOUS smog problems for the next 4-6 decades in those areas.

Sure, many Chinese and Indians are becoming "middle class" and thus can purchase automobiles.

But, like Europeans (in contrast to Americans) , these societies are also embracing real, workable, and efficient public transportation.

Just because you can't pry a fat American out of a car even to walk a block or two, doesn't mean that's how most of the world's population approaches transportation.

Dear god, why not leave your naked prejudice inside before it leaves your hands? I promise I might take you a little more seriously if you can stop hating people just because of their lifestyle.

If Americans were still fat, but used all electric cars instead of public transportation, would you still hate them so much? Oh wait, I shouldn't ask, you'll probably just find another reason to hate them.

The average American one way car commute is 23 minutes the average one way public transit commute is 53. Only in large cities is the car commute longer and public transit commute shorter. The US unlike many European countries is far less dense making public transportation unsustainable in many of its cities. If buses were forced to make stops within a half mile of all places of employment they would be a serious contributor to pollution as they would be running empty the majority of the time.

The important thing to note is that they're approaching "middle class" status. Generally, as income rises, so does pollution, but only to a certain level. Eventually, the middle class can afford things like catylitic converters for their cars and better enginges and pollution starts to decline. California, for example, has twice as many cars as they did 30 years ago, but better air quality thanks to better emissions control on new vehicles.

In Asia there are a lot of old 2-stroke powered vehicles about, each one of them pumps out up to 50x more pollutant than a relatively new car. Combined with heavy traffic means lots of them idling in the street at any one time. Many of these engines are only a couple of horsepower and cost only a few $100 to replace with a new 4-stroke model but people don't have this kind of money to spare so they are stuck with these old polluting engines.

Back in the time before carbon offsetting was dismissed as 'buying indulgences' one of the things offsetting companies spent money on was buying 4-stroke petrol engines (or less polluting 2-strokes) to put the old 2-stroke engines out of circulation.

I don't know why they are even allowed to buy A123, I can't buy a Chinese company even if I had the money. The Americans that allowed this to happen are fools, giving their future away to China.

Not sure if electric is the way to go until suitable capacitors are developed. A fuel injected high compression ratio combustion engine burning methane, ethanol or hydrogen only emits a bit of harmless CO2, I'd stick to that until supercaps go above 30Wh/kg. I'm aware of problems with current ethanol and hydrogen

Interpretation
Worldwide, the contribution of different risk factors to disease burden has changed substantially, with a shift away from risks for communicable diseases in children towards those for non-communicable diseases in adults. These changes are related to the ageing population, decreased mortality among children younger than 5 years, changes in cause-of-death composition, and changes in risk factor exposures. New evidence has led to changes in the magnitude of key risks including unimproved water and sanitation, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and ambient particulate matter pollution. The extent to which the epidemiological shift has occurred and what the leading risks currently are varies greatly across regions. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, the leading risks are still those associated with poverty and those that affect children.

So we are just moving from underdeveloped causes of death, up to luxury causes of death . ..

The first article mentions fastest growing, which is to say not necessarily the most prominent factor. Also, some weird wording is going on

The study found that in 2010, 3.2 million people died prematurely from the air pollution–particularly the sooty kind that spews from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks. And of those untimely deaths, 2.1 million were in Asia

So, in the rest of the world 1.1 million people died from air pollution, that might come from cars. I wonder how many of those 2.1 million asians were from China?

The second article directly contradicts the summary viewpoint:

In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]).

And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come. Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere). And for someone like me who lives next to a busy road, we get much lower sound.

For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.

For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers. And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.

When Tesla starts making the roadster (about the only electric/hybrid car that isn't fugly)...and get it in the price range of a Vette, talk to me then. I'll be interested in one of those.

You buy the car, lease the battery (or some other arrangement). You pull up to the 'Battery Station', a cart rolls up and pulls your battery, and a second cart loads up a battery that the station could charge at the optimal rate.

The whole process could be faster than even filling up your car with gasoline.

Add in a guarantee like AAA where if your battery dies enroute a 'refill' truck will be dispatched. I think that would be a pretty workable so

The 85kWh Model S can already do a range of 300 miles [teslamotors.com]. And some have taken it to over 400 [nytimes.com]

Battery performance over time is reportedly 70% of full capacity after 7 years [teslamotors.com]. That's not 100%, but it's certainly not bad either, and ignoring the advances in Lithium Ion, Lithium Air tech is fast approaching too.

Do you remember what happened with LCDs and SSDs? They were extortionately priced at first, but you can now get a 256GB Samsung SSD for £180, and dropping. I think most importantly, in the public

I'd be happy with a reasonably priced single seat reverse trike (something like this [blogspot.com]) for my daily commute and reserve my gas burning vehicle for long range driving, trips to the market, and various other cargo needs (like people.)

Yet its price is up in the 1%er range. Absent a huge leap in battery technology, the price isn't likely to go down very quickly. Electrics are just too expensive in comparison to gasoline. Look at the Nissan Leaf, nice enough car, but it's basically an electric version of a Versa, but at over twice the price. Payback on fuel for the average case is seven years, not counting extra interest on that 2x car loan, not counting the $7,500 the taxpayers put in, but also not counting reduced service costs (unless y

And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come.

That happened already - in the early 20th century, electric cars were all the rage in large metropolitan areas. Of course, they were severely limited by the battery technology of the time, so I do believe if we can get the costs down, electric cars stand to make a significant comeback in those regions.

Side note: I always wondered why city-only cars would have batteries, and not just use a constantly connected grid system like bumper cars...

Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere).

The great thing about an electric car is simplicity. You have a battery, a motor, a differential, and a light-weight cooling system (mainly for the batteries). The engine is basically one moving part that doesn't reciprocate, you don't need a multi-gear transmission with a shifting mechanism, and there's no high-heat to degrade everything. No oil changes, rare coolant fluid changes.

Although you may have to take it in for maintenance, it should be relatively rare compared to an internal combustion engine.

By 1990 in America I thought only older clunkers didn't have cats, but then I found out that many fairly new cars in Europe didn't. I think the market there when pretty much entirely cat by the mid 90s.

There was a UK traffic study that found that police cited driver error in something like 90% of crashes. Topmost cause: failure to use due care.

People are more concerned about having a coffee, texting, changing the radio station, or just tuning out and running on autopilot because there's no consequences. Crash and your insurance pays for the damages+injuries; the most you'll get in the US, unless your conduct is completely egregious, is a civil fine and a hike in your insurance rate.

For fuck's sakes, we have insurance companies here that advertise "accident forgiveness" policies!

Until an at-fault collision involves having to appear in criminal court, people will keep right on smashing into things - other cars, stationary objects, and human beings.

like trying to pass a truck on the right side while its making a right turn

That is the fault of the lorry driver. He should have used his mirrors.

Yes, it's a stupid thing for the cyclist to do, but the lorry driver is still at fault. And don't give me crap about him not being able to see. That problem has been solved ages ago with mirrors. If the driver cannot figure out how to adjust the mirrors, well then he shouldn't have a license.

Denmark, which is rather full of cyclists, managed a whole year with zero fatalities involving right-turning lorries or buses. Alas, EU regulations mean that most lorry drivers are from Eastern Europe now, and so the murder spree has resumed.

Also notice that there are practically never any right-turning accidents involving buses. You would think that since most buses are in cities, it would be a common thing. Yet it almost never happens. Again, that points to the vast majority of right-turning accidents being entirely avoidable and the fault of the driver.

In 2010, the three leading risk factors for global disease burden were high blood pressure (70% [95% uncertainty interval 62—77] of global DALYs), tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (63% [55—70]), and alcohol use (55% [50—59]). In 1990, the leading risks were childhood underweight (79% [68—94]), household air pollution from solid fuels (HAP; 70% [56—83]), and tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke (61% [54—68]). Dietary risk factors and physical inactivity collectively accounted for 100% (95% UI 92—108) of global DALYs in 2010, with the most prominent dietary risks being diets low in fruits and those high in sodium. Several risks that primarily affect childhood communicable diseases, including unimproved water and sanitation and childhood micronutrient deficiencies, fell in rank between 1990 and 2010, with unimproved water and sanitation accounting for 09% (04—16) of global DALYs in 2010. However, in most of sub-Saharan Africa childhood underweight, HAP, and non-exclusive and discontinued breastfeeding were the leading risks in 2010, while HAP was the leading risk in south Asia. The leading risk factor in Eastern Europe, most of Latin America, and southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2010 was alcohol use; in most of Asia, North Africa and Middle East, and central Europe it was high blood pressure. Despite declines, tobacco smoking including second-hand smoke remained the leading risk in high-income north America and western Europe. High body-mass index has increased globally and it is the leading risk in Australasia and southern Latin America, and also ranks high in other high-income regions, North Africa and Middle East, and Oceania.

The news here is that the risk factors have shifted in the last 20 years, not that "OMG cars are baaaaad", still, salty foods are a lot more likely too kill you than a car exhaust.

How behind the times are you? Modern diesels are far less polluting than the diesels of old. With common rail injection, ultra-low sulphur diesel and particulate scrubbers, they are pretty damn clean. Couple that with lower fuel consumption they can, for example, put out less CO2 per mile than gasoline.

You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag, but those of us on the road behind you have to roll up our windows due to pungent smell spewing from the back of your car.

Please take your diesel to a scrap yard or drive it into a tree.

That is only older diesels that don't have all the emissions requirement and are predominately larger vehicles. I'm sure you will be able to get all the semi drivers to stop using their high torque diesel engines for gas all you have to tell then is mister I don't care that you can't haul half the weight you used to and it costs twice as much in gas because gas engines have no torque.

Diesel in the US still smells. I was just behind a brand new Jetta TDI at a stoplight with my windows open and it still smells. Granted there was no big dark cloud of particulates like I remember from the diesels when I was young, but they definitely still smell bad.

I drive a brand new Jetta TDI every (other) day, and have not experienced this noxious odor you speak of.

Perhaps the owner of the particular car you were behind doesn't take very good care of it?

Or they modded it. I've been behind a few modern (2010+) diesel pickup trucks that spew smoke like it's going out of style. I can only assume it's from the owner messing up something in the quest for power.

I've been behind a few modern (2010+) diesel pickup trucks that spew smoke like it's going out of style. I can only assume it's from the owner messing up something in the quest for power.

There's about four reasons you might see this. Some diesel catalysts require fuel injection into the catalyst, if the user nails it during this time you can get some noticeable smoke. Another is the driver could be an idiot and have a clogged filter. I have a "filter minder" gauge on my dash (which I added) which tells me when my filter is clogged. Another reason can be the elimination of the filter systems; kits exist to eliminate them. This is generally illegal but some states still don't check the equipm

Diesel has 11% more BTU's per L than standard gasoline at average temperature and pressure, most diesel models get significantly better than an 11% improvement over their gasoline siblings. Much of this has to do with the fact that the diesel creates so much better torque at low RPM's that the manufacturer can install a smaller, less powerful engine without making the vehicle feel like a complete dog. As an example the 148HP CX5 diesel does 119g/km versus the 160HP gas engine which does 139g/km, an improvement of 16% and the diesel is significantly more fun to drive.

Or maybe you're thinking of "modern cars available for sale in the USA" and not "modern cars." Chinese cars are known to be dangerous garbage in every way, and this article specifically mentions the increase in Asia.

After living in a developing country for a while, my snot turned greyish blue from the exhaust from cars (and probably more from buses and trucks, based on visual evidence). Pollution from vehicles and cars can get really bad.

You did read the part about 2/3 of the deaths being in India and China, right? They've got very few of the emissions controls that we have in Europe, North America, and other parts of Asia (like Japan and South Korea).

Ever been out of the United States, Floppy? Try Mexico City, Mexico; Ahwaz, Iran; or Linfen, China. Those cities will turn your freshly showered pure-white cottontail black before the end of the day! Regrettably, many countries do not have the same type of increasing restrictions on auto-exhaust and factory emissions that the United States requires to better air quality. Further, this is as much about heat as it is about exhaust. Heat traps airborne pollutants. Heat combined with growing populations, massive urbanization and industrialization, and ever more cars on the road; yeah it's going to lead to more deaths due to respiratory problems, cancers, and other diseases.

Considering history goes back well before the invention of the automobile, or even of the internal combustion or steam engines, I'd say that it's guaranteed that deaths from car exhaust are not at a historical low.

Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors that, if anything, deaths from car exhaust are probably at their historical low.

And you've been modded insightful for simply declaring a study wrong on personal incredulity [rationalwiki.org].

However, I'll tackle your claim: yes, the very expensive, CA-emissions-compliant car in your driveway is a very clean car. However, it is not representative of what you will find in the major, growing cities of the world, and before you say "but the major cities of the worl

Further, there are trade offs. Environment or Economy. Where you balance these needs depend on your culture and values. In America we lean heavily towards the idea that economy is the be all end all, and the environment can go jump in a slightly polluted lake. Enviroment is also more than just "the wilds", or "ecosystems", its also the place where we live, how we want our cities and communities to operate. In most US cities, we don't care one bit

Because evidence indicates that roadway expansions do not reduce congestion, but increase it in the medium term: study [utoronto.ca]. You know what reduced congestion in my city? Mass transit. They put in a train and more buses, and the congestion in the area dropped substantially.

Carpooling and intelligent work scheduling works too. Before the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, there were predictions of massive gridlock and athletes failing to make it to events because they were stuck in traffic. As a result, the L.A. metro area instituted a massive voluntary anti-traffic campaign. Individuals were encouraged to carpool. Companies were encouraged to spread out their business hours. Instead of having everyone work 9-5, start times ranged from 6, 6:30, 7, 7:30, etc. to 10.

Your own study refutes your claim that mass transit is somehow better than traditional road capacity with the following wording:

"These ïndings suggest that both road capacity expansions and extensions to public transit are not appropriate policies with which to combat trafïc congestion".

Mass transit works well within a limited context, outside of the limited context mass transit's effectiveness starts to fall apart quickly. If you live within a core city and are traveling to another part of a core

In particular, if you look at the data from the first study, there was basically just no p >.05 for that correlation. Mass transit can be an important part of long-term congestion reduction, but it hasn't worked everywhere. In context, it has worked here, charlotte, NC.

The reason? I think most of us have a given level of congestion that we're willing to tolerate. Bigger road just means more people flock to it, or travel at peak times, and it reaches exactly the same level of congestion. (I drive to work at 6.30am to avoid traffic. If the road were enlarged to three lanes either way, I bet I could travel at 7.30am with the same level of traffic as now. The enlargement wouldn't have reduced pollution at all.)

Adding an extra lane in each direction requires a lot of space. If you're inside a city often the city is built right up to the edges of the roads. At least where I am it's not the environmentalists who protest road expansions, it's the people who are going to lose their land and buildings to create room to expand the road.

Because by the time you get done with all the intergovernmental squabbling, environmental impact studies, lawsuits, protests, community meetings, and court orders the new road can't handle the traffic anymore, because the demand has increased past what it was designed to carry decades ago.

Example: rebuilding the bridge between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA. They've spent over a million dollars on nothing but planning and meetings and draft EIS paperwork, and they are still no closer to even moving a shov

I'm in Texas - we throw a ton of money at highways, and stomp over all sorts of environmental concerns.

And we still can't keep up.

The basic problem: we can add load to a roadway (new houses, shopping centers, simply driving to farther destinations) in parallel. Roads are only as good as their weakest link; effectively, we can only add to them sequentially.

Most traffic is from ring point to ring point and has been for many years. Most jobs are from ring point to ring point as well, this is where additional lanes are needed the most.

Since most highways from one suburb to another are only two lanes it results in too much traffic for the capacity of the road. I've traveled quite a bit over the years and this is something I have seen in a lot of major metropolitan areas.

Population distribution. We have moved away from many small and medium sized towns to smaller number of larger towns. Visit a small to mid size town sometime and you'll discover their idea of rush hour is about 15 minutes long.

If you were to think in terms of computers our current model in the US and Canada lacks load distribution. We're trying to process too much data (traffic) with too little I/O bandwidth (lanes) available to do it with. We also have a significantly increasing load (population) with no g

Did you know that property values are highest where roads are the narrowest?

Roads are narrowest where rich landowners can fight the expansion of the road. You have mixed correlation with causation. Remember, you have to add capacity at the same rate you add load. When you can't do that anymore you have to redistribute the load to where the capacity is available. Houston and Los Angeles are examples of poor load distribution, not failures of capacity.

Really, European cars get the same mileage in city or highway driving? Wow, how come your own mileage ratings argue with you? Even if you shut off your engine (start stop has been common in the US for the last several years as well), you still have to accelerate to speed. Acceleration is the part that creates the most pollution and burns the most fuel. The idea that simply shutting off your engine for a few seconds is going to negate this is laughable. Please, just do a little bit of googling first, is that

Of course they do, but they don't have to. Cabs in particular can be plug-in hybrids, and taxi stands could feature quick-charging stations. Buses can be full-electric in some cases, and hopefully someone will eventually come up with a plug-in hybrid system big enough for a bus (so far attempts to make them reliable have failed, AFAIK) and then we can have buses which sometimes run on batteries and sometimes run on diesel (or whatever) and sometimes run on and charge from overhead wires.

Seriously. The '74 Firebird SD455 was pretty much the last muscle car until the Mustang GT 5.0 HO came out in the late 80s. The 1977 Trans Am was beautiful, but it had a 400 ci engine that was technically a small block and it made only 200 HP.

Seriously. The '74 Firebird SD455 was pretty much the last muscle car until the Mustang GT 5.0 HO came out in the late 80s. The 1977 Trans Am was beautiful, but it had a 400 ci engine that was technically a small block and it made only 200 HP.

Well, 1976 was the last year for the 455 in the Trans Am....that and '75 cars can be gotten fairly cheaply still in good shape. A bit of work on the engine (more aggressive cam, bore it out, dual exhausts, etc) and you can get a pretty high HP car.

Early catalytic converters were crap. However, here in the 21st century we have "high-flow" cats that don't significantly increase backpressure in the exhaust.

Othr things that have improved since the 1970s:

- Horsepower per litre, thanks to alloy blocks, overhead cams, EFI.

- Fuel consumption per horsepower, thanks to all the above

- Handling, thanks to disc brakes, independent suspension

- Safety, thanks to seat belts, crumple zones, ABS

All that aside, I can see the appeal of a muscle car. If I had the time and money, I'd love to take a big boxy 1970s beast, throw away the ancient cast-iron carburetted engine, and drop in something like the 4.5L Lexus V8. Here in.au these engines are reasonably cheap from wrecked japanese imports. EFI, all-alloy, quad-cam, unleaded fuel friendly, and no dicking aorund tweaking carbs or constantly adjusting ignition points.

It may annoy the purists, but I would be able to spend more time _driving_ it.

But there is something to be said about driving a very large displacement engine. Those things are fun to burn rubber off the line at the drop of a pedal.

I either love or hate people like you, because I get to pass you on the twisty roads I like to drive on, where your big V8 is a liability, or you don't get out of the way, and I'm stuck behind you the whole way. My car tops out at about 100 mph, but that's fast enough, and more than fast enough in a non-handling land yacht like what you propose to restore.

6.5L and only 200HP, dear lord were those cars pathetic. Today you can produce that kind of HP from a NA 2.4L or a turbo 2L.

You do not need a turbo. Both Honda and Nissan have 2 liter engines putting out over 200 horsepower without excessive compression, using variable valve timing. Problem is, they both have significantly less than 200 ft-lb of torque. My truck might only have 120 RWHP, but it has around 300 ft-lb... My car only has 120 BHP, but it has around 200 ft-lb... Both will beat most vehicles across the intersection:)